The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[TheLoneBedouin]

Are you suggesting that in the "official story" the plane goes under the bridge? Burrows into the ground, reappears, and then hits the Pentagon?

Not at all.
You posted a pick of a tree which appeared to have been flattened horizontally at the top- since the official story doesn't have the plane leveling out at that altitude your post does not support the official story. (BTW the tree's shape appears normal to me, but this is what you posted).

 

[pomeroo]

done.

No, you were exposed as a liar.

now since you've admitted publicly many times to never having actually watched any interview conducted by cit i challenge you to go watch The North Side Flyover

and come back and explain why each individual is wrong.

although i already know you're not going to.

The moronic frauds of the CIT are not worth my time. When any of the liars are willing to interview a "witness" in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.

 

[pomeroo]

The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.
Interestingly, Middleton also corroborates Steve Chaconas' loop over Washington- as do the initial radar reports.

You and your fellow liars steadfastly avoid the question about the survivors of the Titantic. So, tell us: what does it mean that people watching the same event draw very different conclusions? Does it prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

 

[pomeroo]

because you know its a bogus claim.

one of those lies that if repeated enough lurkers might start to believe is true.

but it is the lie.

This mindless gibberish sounds like a concession speech.

 

[The Big Dog]

i challenge you to start naming truthers that "HATE" cit.

oh what you can't provide any real names?

who'd a thunk it?

I can't?? How about Russell Pickering? He called you guys frauds to your faces.

How about Caustic Logic (a/k/a Adam Larson) He posts here (although, he seems to mock you guys more than hate you)

How about Dylan Avery? He booted your asses off the old LC board.

How about the guy who runs the "letsroll forums"? He really hates you, and your whiny pal Aldo almost quit the new LC board when JFK would not kick him off (what a pansy!)?

How about "Arabesque" He called you disinfo. Oh wait that is not a "real name," right? Tell you what, you tell us your buddy Killtown's name, and I'll tell you Arabesque's, deal?

How about the new LC board? Oh, wait, I'll give you that, Dom. They just ignore you.

So you are the losers of the dumb class. Good job, Dom.

 

[Myriad]

Since CIT had already demonstrated to all of our satisfaction that it could mislead, misinterpret, and misrepresent four witnesses, why do they expect us to be surprised or impressed that, given a little more time to work on it, they can mislead, misinterpret, and misrepresent thirteen?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[John Blonn]

Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

You know what, I'm LOLing too hard about the first claim to wait.

Here's the deadly problem with your first attempt.

You claim that the conspirators wanted 'precise' damage. You didn't define what you meant by this, but I'm going to assume you meant that they wanted the South side path to be as 'realistic' as possible, i.e. wanted the physical evidence to replicate as close as possible what would happen if the plane had 'really' flew across the South path.

So, therefore, you allege, they flew the plane to the North in order to prevent...

Wait.

Hold on.

You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?

Again, you wrote: "It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles." What you're saying here is that the conspirators didn't want to fly the plane on the South side on the off chance that it hit something on the South side, revealing that the plane was...flying on the South side? That it's easier to fly the plane on the North and create fake damage on the South rather than actually just flying the plane to the south and letting the plane make the damage?


Instead of flying the plane to the south and ACTUALLY knocking down the poles, the conspirators actually decided to fly it on the North path so as to not knock down light poles, and then go ahead and prefab light poles and make them look like the plane flew to the South? What?

Could you please explain in more depth what you meant by your statement?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

Really?

Russell Pickering told the CIT that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

 

[John Blonn]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

You've been trapped.

A mistake could not have been made, as you allege.

A bomb set up like this implies that the conspirators INTENDED to fly the plane to the North side. For the timing, the angle, and all to work out, for the witnesses to see the plane to the North, 'hit' the Pentagon, but actually get away, the conspirators would have had to PLAN to fly the plane to the North.

And yet, they create damage to the South path...

In conclusion: A mistake was not possible.

QED

 

[TC329]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Your thoughts TC?

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

 

[pomeroo]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

Yoo-hoo! Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain your answer.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You and your fellow liars steadfastly avoid the question about the survivors of the Titantic. So, tell us: what does it mean that people watching the same event draw very different conclusions? Does it prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain.

Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy.

 

[TC329]

Really?

Russell Pickering told the CIT that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

where's the government operative russell pickering and his videos at today 16.5?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

last i recall after convincing dylan avery that a plane hit the pentagon for loose change final cut and delivering a major setback to this movement russell "retired" saying he had "accomplished all of his goals in regards to 9/11 research" and now sells real estate.

aldo & craig haven't "retired" and russell pickering doesn't know anyone who has videos of anything.

fascinating that a crew had 3 camera's set up filming the pentagon and yet not one of them noticed a massive loud airplane approaching and turned their camera's toward it but all of them left it on the area that would prove a plane didn't fly over.

if such video's existed they could have been filmed on sept 11 2005 for all you know.

pickering is a fraud and was exposed as such and ran away with his tail between his legs. expect john farmer and adam larson to follow his lead very shortly and that arabesque bozo as well.

 

[TC329]

Yoo-hoo! Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain your answer.

relationship to the bush administrations attack on the pentagon and the sinking of the titanic are.............?

 

[pomeroo]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

Yes, the Democratic Party has benefited enormously from the public perception that Bush has handled the War on Terror poorly. Can we conclude that Bush merely pretends to be a Republican?

Getting back to that question about the Titanic survivors--oh, you never went there in the first place. I wonder why not. So, tell us: did the people who thought the ship went down in one piece prove that it didn't sink at all. Explain your answer.

How can you advise reading the PNAC document when you know nothing about it?

Now, you are amazingly dumb, but absolutely no one is dumb enough to swallow Fetzer's zany lie about the "missing" $2.3 trillion. It ain't missing; nobody thinks it is. Game over.

 

[John Blonn]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

? What does this have to do with anything? Why bring Hani Hanjour into this? The plane had to have been flown by a government agent, not Hani. Who knows what happened to Hani in your world. I really don't get what you mean by this.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

And flying over the Pentagon at last second at high speeds is any easier? Why do you think this? Evidence? Proof?

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

Hani's not flying the aircraft. And they're not flying into the Pentagon anyway, they're flying over it. All these objections apply to your flyover theory - it requires a pilot to complete very complex maneuvers at a fast speed in short time with NO MISTAKES.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

Red herring.

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

Red herring.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

Red herring.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

Red herring.

 

[pomeroo]

relationship to the bush administrations attack on the pentagon and the sinking of the titanic are.............?

Sorry, your clumsy attempt at evasion is unacceptable.

We'll try it again. Many survivors of the Titanic disaster thought that the ship went down in one piece. They were watching from nearby lifeboats and yet they were wrong. How is this possible? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

(I love watching you mindless liars squirm!)

 

[TC329]

I can't?? How about Russell Pickering? He called you guys frauds to your faces.

agent russell pickering "retired" from 9/11 truth it was so important to him.
so whose the "fraud" again?

How about Caustic Logic (a/k/a Adam Larson) He posts here (although, he seems to mock you guys more than hate you)

adam larson is not a truther.

How about Dylan Avery? He booted your asses off the old LC board.

well dylan avery has never had a problem with me and i have never been booted off any forum his or anyone elses......

what he did before russell pickering "retired" i can't explain maybe you should ask him if you're concerned. last i seen though he doesn't seem to have any problems with cit presenting their evidence in his house.

do you see dew or npt threads over there? yeah, me neither......

How about the guy who runs the "letsroll forums"? He really hates you, and your whiny pal Aldo almost quit the new LC board when JFK would not kick him off (what a pansy!)?

i personally don't care what phil thinks of anyone. i spoke to him once. i learned from him through his source christopher bollyn that shanksville was a gothic little city and everyone was related and involved in some sort of satanic cult. he then proceeded to get me to accept jesus christ into my life after asking me to call him in alaska because he couldn't afford to call pa despite being a television station engineer.

How about "Arabesque" He called you disinfo. Oh wait that is not a "real name," right? Tell you what, you tell us your buddy Killtown's name, and I'll tell you Arabesque's, deal?

arabesque doesn't promote truth and is not a truther.

How about the new LC board? Oh, wait, I'll give you that, Dom. They just ignore you.

no one ignores me or anyone in cit.

So you are the losers of the dumb class. Good job, Dom.

yep keep repeating it enough and maybe just maybe somebody will believe you.....

yeah what a strange night. everyone here is accusing other people of being guilty of what they themselves really are.....

thats why there are websites and bloggers dedicated to attacking cit. and so many threads here devoted to them and their research.......

 

[TC329]

No, you were exposed as a liar.





The moronic frauds of the CIT are not worth my time. When any of the liars are willing to interview a "witness" in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.

lmao!!!!

again you are proven to be a joke.

and you wonder why no one takes you serious except the lemmings......